THE CANNING INDUSTRY FROM THE GROWER'S

STANDPOINT

S. J. COOK

Secretary-Treasurer of South Shore Growers' and Shippers' Association, Silver Creek, Chautauqua County, N. Y.

The growing of fruit and vegetables for preserving and canning in the United States and Canada has, in the last ten years, become an important industry. Hundreds of factories have been erected in many states, and hundreds of thousands of acres are devoted each year to the growing of canning crops. There were packed in the United States in 1914 approximately 25,000,000 cases of the three vegetables corn, peas and tomatoesand approximately 4,500,000 cases in Canada. These, coupled with other important vegetables, such as string beans, beets, asparagus and kraut- to say nothing of the berries of all kinds, and other tree crops give one an idea of the magnitude of the canning industry in this country.

All manner of men are engaged in the undertaking, and there are all kinds of canning factories from the cheaply constructed shed to the enormous, up-to-date, sanitary establishments constructed of concrete, brick and iron, covering acres, and capitalized by large corporations with millions at stake. No industry has made greater advancement in the manufacturing of its products. Inventors, expert machinists and manufacturers have designed and perfected the most modern machinery for the manufacture of canned products. A few of the larger preservers and canners manufacture their own bottles and cans. There is also great improvement in the matter of sanitation; likewise in the quality of the finished products. Many of the larger plants invite public inspection.

Much publicity has been given the merits of canned fruits, which has had a tendency to increase the consumption. A large part of

the population in the cities depend almost wholly on canned goods the larger part of the year, and the canning business has grown beyond the expectations of the best informed men in the business. Undoubtedly, it will continue in its growth. That the business has proven profitable is to be seen by the large fortunes acquired by those interested in canning and preserving.

The canning business of this country represents enormous crops, wonderful manufacturing output, superior salesmanship, and, while the cost of staple articles of food is eyer increasing at an alarming rate-notwithstanding all the efforts that have been made to increase the production of the soil such increase in the cost of living cannot be laid to the canner. On the other hand, he is a public benefactor.

There are exceptions to the rule, however, in the canning business. What I will say now represents the grower's interest and the unfairness on the part of the canner in his business dealings with the grower, and I trust that it will not be taken as antago nistic. We, as growers, are all interested in the welfare and advancement of the canning industry in this state, and are in a large measure dependent upon the canneries for the sale of our products.

RELATION BETWEEN THE GROWER AND CANNER

The canners have made it possible for us to grow thousands of tons of perishable fruit and produce, and that at a contract price; but have they always been just and fair in their business dealings with the grower? I think not. On the other hand, has the grower always been fair with the canner; has he delivered all of the crop contracted for? No, he has not. I shall say something in regard to this later.

Where climatic conditions and soil are adapted to the culture of such crops as tomatoes, peas, corn-in fact all vegetable crops -and a fair price is paid by the canners, many growers have made money. But, on the other hand, there are localities where canners and perservers have taken advantage of individual growers in price cutting, unfairness of contract, failing to furnish crates to harvest and deliver the crop, refusing to pay the grower for his produce until the canned products were sold, thereby making the grower help finance their business - in fact their contracts

with the growers were often "jug-handled" affairs. They were in position at all times to dictate in the matter of contracting for tomatoes. If the grower's crop happened to be late and the canner had received from other growers about all the tomatoes he cared to pack, he would at times refuse to receive any more tomatoes under any consideration, although the quality of the fruit might have been of the best. The same holds true with corn, peas and some other crops.

Contracts for produce are generally made with the grower two or three months previous to the planting of the crop. If the canner desired a large acreage of peas and the contracts were not forthcoming from the growers, he would refuse to take a contract for tomatoes, unless the grower agreed to contract for a certain acreage of peas, or vice versa.

There are many other instances of unfair treatment, such as having to wait long hours in line when making delivery, and, after having done so, have the inspector inform you that he would be obliged to cut you two or three dollars a ton on the load as the tomatoes were not as perfect as they should have been and did not conform to the contract. I have had my own load of tomatoes turned down for no other reason than to help eliminate the large loss which was occurring daily on account of deterioration of the fruit, the canner being unable to properly care for the tomatoes. The accumulation of a large over supply at such times invariably caused a loss which the grower was asked to help sustain. Such discrimination and unbusinesslike management on the part of the canner has had a tendency to create great dissatisfaction, and where growers are obliged to stand for treatment of this kind there is not a likelihood of making much money in growing tomatoes for the canneries.

The grower, as an individual, is not in position to make demands on the canner; he will be given to understand that he is not running the canning factory in fact, he is not taken into serious consideration. If he does not like the treatment accorded him he can, of course, refuse to contract next year, but that does not help the present situation.

What I have said of unfair treatment of the growers by the canners is, undoubtedly, the exception rather than the rule, but in

dealing with canners of the type mentioned many growers have made but a scant living, and have not received an adequate return for their labor or investment.

The growers in this locality found that the whole solution of their troubles was to cooperate, which they did.

ADVANTAGE OF COOPERATION

By cooperation the growers bettered all conditions. They received one dollar more per ton for their tomatoes than they had been previously paid and were given a better contract. In this contract the preserver agreed to receive all marketable tomatoes to a certain date, and further consented to a two-payment clause in the contract - payment for one-half of all tomatoes delivered up to September fifteenth, and the balance within ten days after the remainder of the crop had been delivered. They also agreed to furnish packages. In fact they were much more congenial and · businesslike than they had been, and there was really a change in business, which was, I believe, for the good of all concerned.

Cooperation is a necessity in some localities; growers have been compelled to either "get together," or go out of the business. Canners as a rule do not advocate dealing with a cooperative association; in fact they have been more or less antagonistic. But I believe the time is not far distant when they can be made to see the efficiency and wisdom in doing so as soon as it can be shown that a policy of this kind takes into consideration fairness to the

canner.

If the growers are to demand fair play they must in turn do their share, and while an association is, undoubtedly, in a better position to maintain a fair price for its products and demand fair treatment for its members, it should at all times apply good sense in conducting its business. We must not ask an exhorbitant price; the canner must receive the raw products within certain limits of cost, and the treatment accorded him should be in the light of a prospective partner. Further, we should make no distinction in the matter of fair dealings between that accorded the canner and our own members. We should deliver good quality produce, goods that would please, rather than to try to get rid of poor, unmarketable products.

The growers have not always been fair in matters of this kind. They have at times tried to deliver any but quality produce, filling bottoms of containers with poor rubbish and topping off with standard grade fruit. They have also shipped large quantities of contract produce to the open market at an advanced price, and at other times have overloaded the canneries with a large supply that possibly came from an adjoining field and was not contracted in direct violation of their contract.

A cooperative association must have some rule of fairness; must have a reputation for fair dealing; must be dependable and have fixed business principles which serve both the buyer and the seller. Our plan is to enter into an agreement with the canners and preservers for a specified number of acres of produce at a stated price. The conditions governing the contract cover varieties, delivery, loading station, baskets for delivery, right of the canner to measure acreage, quality of fruit or produce and terms of payment.

In the matter of contracting with our members, each one is required to sign a binding contract specifying acreage and agreeing that all produce marketed at canneries shall conform to the standard and conditions as set forth in the contract made between canneries and the association. We found it was necessary to have a stringent contract.

With us cooperation has made possible better business methods. It has likewise been a benefit to the canner. He now receives better quality produce; he is not disappointed in his acreage by being informed at the last minute that the grower failed to plant his crop; his expense in securing acreage with the individual growers is lessened, and improved methods of production and grading have given him better uniformity, which has greatly improved quality. The management has interested canners and preservers in distant cities and towns in the purchase of our products. This has increased the acreage in production from year to year, which has added to the prosperity of the growers, and all classes of our citizens have shared in the prosperity. The railroads have profited by the increased freight tonnage resulting from industrial activity, based on agricultural prosperity; manufacturers of farm